Agree with you on 'When I'm Sixty-Four' and I'll go as far as saying that it is a necessary track there, that - along with 'She's Leaving Home' - provides a little glimpse of reality, a short wake-up call, a celebration of day-to-day little pleasures. The Beatles were not dumb guys, and the track was in no way put there by mistake, in my opinion. Works just as 'Sloop John B' on 'Pet Sounds' - the narrator's break of inner-self-analysis, in favor of an outer experience (that eventually turns out to have an emotional impact on him after all).

I get what you mean in your second paragraph and you expressed your thoughts very well. You mention the fact that few songs would've been special if not for the adventurous production. But I think, in some cases, this is a moot point, because they weren't. Ask yourself this: would John have attempted to write a song based on a circus poster if not knowing that he'll be able to (try to) create a somewhat circus-like atmosphere? They knew that George Martin was not about to shy away from trying anything in the studio and they kept that in mind while composing. Nobody expects 'Lucy In The Sky' to work, given a simpler arrangement, because that's not the point of it. Never was. Again, if you like the approach of RS and Revolver better, that's fine. But Sgt Pepper is a totally different story and it must not be downgraded based on '65/'66 criterias.

Maybe we don't think very different with regard to the point that those different albums are not comparable, because their productions are very different. But I do think that the songs can be comparable at least when we talk about the lyrics. I think a good song is good by itself, and it's really great when its greatness doesn't depend too much on production details. But I don't see the heavy production of Sgt. Pepper's as a mistake, it's actually a merit, I just think that its songwriting is not as good as in those previous albums. The songs in Rubber Soul and Revolver were more meaningful in my opinion and they didn't need hours and hours in studio to sound great.

On the other hand, I think that Rubber Soul and Revolver have some few fillers: "What Goes On", "Wait", "Run For Your Life", "And Your Bird Can Sing", "Doctor Robert", I think they're far from the Beatles' best.

At the end of the day, every opinion depends on personal tastes, but trying to be objective I would say that Sgt. Pepper's charm is superficial, rapidly easy to get, while the other two mentioned albums have a special deep spirit that requires time and several listens in order to touch the listener.

Agree with you on 'When I'm Sixty-Four' and I'll go as far as saying that it is a necessary track there, that - along with 'She's Leaving Home' - provides a little glimpse of reality, a short wake-up call, a celebration of day-to-day little pleasures. The Beatles were not dumb guys, and the track was in no way put there by mistake, in my opinion. Works just as 'Sloop John B' on 'Pet Sounds' - the narrator's break of inner-self-analysis, in favor of an outer experience (that eventually turns out to have an emotional impact on him after all).

I get what you mean in your second paragraph and you expressed your thoughts very well. You mention the fact that few songs would've been special if not for the adventurous production. But I think, in some cases, this is a moot point, because they weren't. Ask yourself this: would John have attempted to write a song based on a circus poster if not knowing that he'll be able to (try to) create a somewhat circus-like atmosphere? They knew that George Martin was not about to shy away from trying anything in the studio and they kept that in mind while composing. Nobody expects 'Lucy In The Sky' to work, given a simpler arrangement, because that's not the point of it. Never was. Again, if you like the approach of RS and Revolver better, that's fine. But Sgt Pepper is a totally different story and it must not be downgraded based on '65/'66 criterias.

I'm not saying they're bad songs, I'm just saying that they're not among the Beatles' best, in my opinion, of course. Do you think that all the Beatles songs are at the same level? Don't you find some songs to be better than others?

I'm not saying they're bad songs, I'm just saying that they're not among the Beatles' best, in my opinion, of course. Do you think that all the Beatles songs are at the same level? Don't you find some songs to be better than others?

Of course I do, but I wouldn't call those songs you mentioned "fillers." Well, maybe with exception of What Goes On, but that was good song for Ringo and he sang it well.

There were a few noteworthy innovations that can be credited to The Beatles in that song. It was certainly an example of one of the earliest uses of harmony guitar in a rock recording.

I actually like all those songs, I just think they're fillers in the context of those albums, which are my very favorite ones. But that's just my opinion.

About "And Your Bird Can Sing", I've never been a big fan of that song. It has a nice guitar work and it certainly brought some innovation as most of Revolver, but the song itself, especially the lyrics, is quite silly. I guess I expect much more from John Lennon, words like those from "In My Life" or "Tomorrow Never Knows". This doesn't mean that I cannot enjoy the song.

I actually like all those songs, I just think they're fillers in the context of those albums, which are my very favorite ones. But that's just my opinion.

About "And Your Bird Can Sing", I've never been a big fan of that song. It has a nice guitar work and it certainly brought some innovation as most of Revolver, but the song itself, especially the lyrics, is quite silly. I guess I expect much more from John Lennon, words like those from "In My Life" or "Tomorrow Never Knows". This doesn't mean that I cannot enjoy the song.

I think Paul stated that a lot of the earlier album songs were considered "working songs". I like all the songs on Sgt. P some more than others but I think all in all the formula for them to put together an album that changed everything the working songs just upped the bar for me by leaps and bounds!

Logged

Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or imbeciles who really mean it! Mark Twain

The Beatles were not dumb guys, and the track was in no way put there by mistake, in my opinion.

I understand what your saying Ovi, but even though it was put there on purpose, that doesnt mean it was the best decision. I suppose if you like the song then its great that its there, but its just so different in composition and atmosphere compared to the rest of the album that it stands out like a stain on a white shirt to me. 'She's Leaving Home' was enough of a break for me without having a 20's themed song that was just galaxies away from what the rest of the album was. Just my opinion I guess.

Quote

I get what you mean in your second paragraph and you expressed your thoughts very well. You mention the fact that few songs would've been special if not for the adventurous production. But I think, in some cases, this is a moot point, because they weren't. Ask yourself this: would John have attempted to write a song based on a circus poster if not knowing that he'll be able to (try to) create a somewhat circus-like atmosphere?

The funny thing is that 'Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite' was indeed a gamble. John wrote a simple song with lyrics lifted from a poster and handed it to George Martin and told him to fix it. George Martin was in doubt that he could for the longest time. If he couldnt, i'm sure the song would have been shelved and something else added. John was never happy with it anyways.

I understand what your saying Ovi, but even though it was put there on purpose, that doesnt mean it was the best decision. I suppose if you like the song then its great that its there, but its just so different in composition and atmosphere compared to the rest of the album that it stands out like a stain on a white shirt to me. 'She's Leaving Home' was enough of a break for me without having a 20's themed song that was just galaxies away from what the rest of the album was. Just my opinion I guess.

It's true that "When I'm Sixty-Four" has some 20's spirit, but the production makes it sound kinda trippy actually. I was always amazed with the backing vocals of the track, those voices sound quite weird, and I think they make the song. I like the song, maybe not among the very best ones, but I think it fits quite well in the album, even when it comes after a completely different song like "Within You Without You".

It's true that "When I'm Sixty-Four" has some 20's spirit, but the production makes it sound kinda trippy actually. I was always amazed with the backing vocals of the track, those voices sound quite weird, and I think they make the song. I like the song, maybe not among the very best ones, but I think it fits quite well in the album, even when it comes after a completely different song like "Within You Without You".

I like the song too when we are talking about it in a singular fashion, but I think its still a horrible fit on that album. We have some good to great psychedelic music followed by an indian piece that has more then enough strangeness to it that allows it its place on the record, and then we have something Bing Crosby should be singing. Its always been a WTF moment in the album for me ever since I was really young. Sgt. Peppers is an awesome album and an important album, but its not the greatest album ever and I truly feel that 'When I'm 64' is the contributing reason for that. I'm beating a dead horse with my opinion and I need to stop, but I just cant overemphasize how distracting that one song is to the flow of the record in its entirety.

nimrod

I like the song too when we are talking about it in a singular fashion, but I think its still a horrible fit on that album. We have some good to great psychedelic music followed by an indian piece that has more then enough strangeness to it that allows it its place on the record, and then we have something Bing Crosby should be singing. Its always been a WTF moment in the album for me ever since I was really young. Sgt. Peppers is an awesome album and an important album, but its not the greatest album ever and I truly feel that 'When I'm 64' is the contributing reason for that. I'm beating a dead horse with my opinion and I need to stop, but I just cant overemphasize how distracting that one song is to the flow of the record in its entirety.

I understand where your coming from totally, I like the song ...........but it doesnt fit imo, the 2 Id be happy not to have on the album are;64' and She's Leaving Home (never play it, its too slow for my liking) replace these 2 with PL & SFF and you have the worlds best album. (its all opinions though)

I understand where your coming from totally, I like the song ...........but it doesnt fit imo, the 2 Id be happy not to have on the album are;64' and She's Leaving Home (never play it, its too slow for my liking) replace these 2 with PL & SFF and you have the worlds best album. (its all opinions though)

I started thinking today that if 'When I'm 64' wasnt on the record, would I be targeting 'She's Leaving Home' just as bad? Hmmm.